<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 5 2004, 09:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 5 2004, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 4 2004, 06:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 4 2004, 06:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I guess my main problem with your rebutall is the fact that I was talking about established democracies. To quote myself, Established democracies very rarely dissolve into despotisms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you are saying the English government, a very established democracy, was not despotic in its dealings with the American colonies? How about with their African colonies? Chinese? Middle Eastern? What about their fine fair dealings with Ireland and Scotland? How about all the other long-running European Democracies which managed to colonize and rule most of the world with an iron hand for a few centuries?
No one is asking you to have a weapon. No one is forcing you to. All that is being discussed is people's right to have the choice. Feel free to not buy one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think they were very despotic. However, as a nation - Britian was a democracy. It had not fallen into despotism, it was merely despotic in its attitudes towards its colonies. So my original statement still stands, if you are part of a stable, established modern democracy, history thinks you have a better than average chance of remaining free of despotic leaders. Your country probably wont dissolve into a despotism. The colonies dont count as part of the British voting public.
To take Germany as an example, Hitler was legally elected, and then started consolidating power, while the majority of the German public stood by in either ignorance or apathy. Either way, an armed populace wasnt going to help at all.
No one is asking me to have a weapon true. I'm actually one of the few armed Australians, owning a Lee Enfield no4 .303 rifle. However, not having a weapon wont save you from being shot by the millions of other gun owners either legitimate or not (if I lived in America). A little off topic? Surely no more than the history a .50 cal machine gun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Our Democracy was bent on the constitution...Jefferson ment for the protectors of the constitution (should all else fail) be the 4th branch of government.
That 4th branch was suppost to be the Organized milita. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok. I'm going to join this debate now.
Let's look at the whole idea of an armed force regulating the government. Turning back the clock to Jefferson's time, the US had no standing army. Congress and the Founding Fathers distructed standing armies, as they had a rather poor reputation in Europe for becoming more powerful than the governments they fought for. But eventually the US had little choice; it had to establish a permenant armed force in the form of a standing military. Today we have the US army, Air Force and Navy, plus the Marine Corps. Now what exactly is their role?
Undoubtably one of the major role these soldiers play is in the defense of the US from external foes, and the enforcement of American foreign policy. Soldiers also can help out in times of national crisis or disasters. But they have another role, one that may not seem so clear. They protect the Constitution of the United States.
To understand this, one must understand the nature of the military of the United States. It is a volunteer army, comprised of American citizens who have decided to serve their country. One would be hard pressed to find a more patriotic group of Americans than the men and women who serve their country in the military. They love their country and the ideals it stands for, as I'm certain Monse can attest to. And almost all those ideals stem from the foundations of the modern US state: the Constitution.
A dictator, by definition, must have a way of controlling the populace. In almost every case, this is done by force. The dictator has an armed force at his command which will enforce his rule, crushing dissent and rooting out "traitors". Without such a force, a dictator cannot rule a country that does not want him there. He must always have the support of a percentage of the population (Just like Saddam had the support of key Iraqi tribes).
The problem for any dictator in the US is the US military. If he wants to take over externally, he must contest this force which is capable of defeating just about any attack the world could throw at the US, excluding full out nuclear war. But a dictator trying to take over the system from within must also contest the US army.
The US army is not the same as the armies which fought during the time of the Founding Fathers. The US army will not enforce any law that violates the Constitution of the United States. It's very members would never allow it, and they would certainly never follow the orders of a dictator. The organised militia Jefferson spoke of exists today, and it is called the US military.
If you want to prevent your government from become tyrannical, if you want to be a citizen who is armed and ready to defend the Constitution of the United States, then join the US military. That's what they're there for.
When your nations has millions of men and women under arms pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, what need has the populace for a militia, or the machine guns to arm it? There is no need.
Thats right, so when the Government says - Okay, Bush has declared himself supreme overlord, dissolved Capitol Hill and is now King Bush the First, crush anyone who dissents, the army does exactly as its told and slaughters countless rioting citizens....
<!--QuoteBegin--Code966+Jan 5 2004, 03:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Code966 @ Jan 5 2004, 03:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Five words: "I was only following orders..." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They still executed him. =\
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent. (Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms)
Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents. (National Safety Council)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your logic is so badly woven that it falls apart to this one line: the US military is under the control of the executive branch of government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if that branch remains true to the Constitution. As Marine01 said, do you honestly, seriously believe that the US military would support a dictator in America? Because if the military will, then the whole country will.
Random things which add to this discussion: IIRC: The Desert Eagle handgun was designed primarily for target shooting... The "most" powerful handgun in existance.. designed for target shooting. and such...weird huh?
So long as there are humans on this earth there will always be disputes on weapons; guns; knives; spears; it's quite interesting really, some humans dedicate themselves to finding new/better ways of killing; first the spear, then the sword, the bow, the crossbow, the early musket rifles, bolt action rifles, automatic rifles..what next? Lasers? Gauss (sp?) rifles?
AFAIK Humans are not the only species that kills it's own, but it is the only species that learns; creates and teaches new and better ways of killing of it's own species....
Back ontopic however; what would happen if no-one had any guns at all? Would that help the problem?(question intentionally unanswered <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Jan 5 2004, 06:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Jan 5 2004, 06:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your logic is so badly woven that it falls apart to this one line: the US military is under the control of the executive branch of government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if that branch remains true to the Constitution. As Marine01 said, do you honestly, seriously believe that the US military would support a dictator in America? Because if the military will, then the whole country will. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Most dictators gain their power via military coup and milipulation of it's military.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your logic is so badly woven that it falls apart to this one line: the US military is under the control of the executive branch of government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is not precisely correct. The Executive is the commander in chief of the Armed forces. Without Congressional authority however, he cannot involve the armed forces anywhere. Whether it be a declaration of war, a release for armed conflict, etc. he is powerless without the Legislature, in both the Constitution and in practice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think they were very despotic. However, as a nation - Britian was a democracy. It had not fallen into despotism, it was merely despotic in its attitudes towards its colonies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This makes no sense to me at all, nor does it follow history. Britain has, for most of its history, been despotic. This includes the time after parliament was formed, until quite recently (and arguably, it is still despotic in its dealings with Ireland and Scotland to this very day). Maybe you could explain again how being despotic does not make you a despot? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To take Germany as an example, Hitler was legally elected, and then started consolidating power, while the majority of the German public stood by in either ignorance or apathy. Either way, an armed populace wasnt going to help at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you can say that on what basis? Was it coincidence that one of Hitler's first acts was to disarm his populace? Can we agree than an armed populace certainly has more of a chance in revolting against a dictatorship than an unarmed one? Can you name any successful dictatorships that involved having the entire populace armed?
Ryo, you make an old and able argument. However it ignores a simple fact that <i>right now</i> it is highly unlikely that a dictatorship could be formed or obeyed in the US. That <i>right now</i> there is no way any army or government would be formed that would resist the law and constitution. Just like there was no way that a pathetic Austrian corporal would ever rule Germany, or that a band of tin-pot militarists would take power from the Japanese emporer. Once you get rid of your populace's weapons, it will take decades for them to come back naturally, and if the government so wished, they would never come back at all. If weapons are controlled and regulated, you get the best of all worlds. In your scenario, you sinply get to hope nothing bad ever happens because there is no way you'll ever be able to do anything about it.
Heh, I can see peoples minds are changing and twisting a lot around here. Didn't you Monse want Palestinians to support their cause via unarmed demonstrations? I remember people saying "Palestinians can't win anything with violence." Now you want USA citizens to support their cause with guns, in case your government would fall under dictatorship. I feel a conflict here <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However it ignores a simple fact that right now it is highly unlikely that a dictatorship could be formed or obeyed in the US. That right now there is no way any army or government would be formed that would resist the law and constitution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But how could this change? How could the situation in the US change to the degree where democratic process no longer existed and a dictator ruled from Washington?
For starters you'd have to completely alter the Constitution, which would require the support of two thirds of Congress plus the Supreme Court. After that you have to win over the hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women who represent the so called "armed populace". See, for a dictator to take power in the USA would require the wholesale support of just about the entire population and their representatives, be they in the government or military.
The only way I can see a dictator ever taking over America would be if he or she managed it with the open and full consent of the population (e.g. Terrorists detonate half a dozen nuclear devices across America, President declares martial law and suspends Civil Rights in order to track the perpetrators down, Congress allows this and the American people support it because they believe its nessassary; far fetched, extreamly far fetched, which should illustrate my point). For this to occur you would need a complete reworking of the ideals of democracy and freedom that the American people hold so dear. As long as those ideals remain, no dictator can ever come to power in America. You don't need guns to back that up.
At the end of the day, do you not trust the men and women you placed into office with your votes, and do you not trust the servicemen and women pledged to defend your nation and Constitution from any foe?
People are seriously discussing how upset they are because they can't buy a Barrett .50? It's designed for killing people at ranges of over 1000m or possibly being used as a personal anti-vehicle weapon. "Barrett .50? Certainly sir, would you like that in home defense configuration or are you just using it for hunting f***ing deer you ****?"
Pistol grip pump action laser sighted shotguns for home defence? "Quick, he's stealing your DVD collection, shoot him in half you over reactionary paranoid gun nut psychos".
Third Reich took power once they took away people's guns? Okay, did they take over Europe with, or without guns?
You need a militia? You have the largest best equipped army in the world, what possible f***ing use is a bunch of untrained wannabe's playing tin soldiers with full automatic weaponary going to do? Your <i>professional</i> army regularly shoots more people on it's own side than they do enemies (including one of my close friends last year - What's the Spirit of the Bayonet, Marines? Kill, kill, kill - yeah, bit more target identification, bit less amphetamine fuelled machine gun rampaging please). Lets make it worse and give all the nutters with persecution complexes M16's (or Barrett's if you like) and set them loose in their home towns and cities.
All your "Cold dead hand" rhetoric and "Constitutional rights" arguements hold very little water with me. Have you ever seen anyone shot? Have you ever done it? Well I f***ing have, I killed for my country and it was eight years ago and it has put a spike right through my soul. You're all so blase about pulling the trigger and killing anyone who breaks into your homes, about forming militias and overthrowing corrupt governments, about having bigger and better guns and being allowed to run round with them. Killing someone (whatever they've done wrong) doesn't make you feel brave or patriotic or heroic. It makes you sick to your stomach and you live the rest of your life wondering how the hell you ever got into that situation. I am proud to have served my country, but I would never pick up a gun for use on another human being again, and if you don't have one for killing people, you don't need one.
These atrocities happened in the UK and we banned guns. Result? It's never happened again ("But there is no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it and not having a gun and not shooting someone with it, and you would be a fool and a Communist to make one" - Bill Hicks). It's called valuing human life, I think dead children is a good reason to give something up but it appears other people don't.
Someone please man up and admit the only reason you have a gun in your wardrobe is because it lends a sense of importance to your insecure, paranoid, insular, xenophobic little life.
Rant over, please mark all replies "Right To Bear Arms" or "I would like to kill someone because..."
Flame bait will be welcomed, lets see if anyone can postulate a better arguement than "It's my right.." In some countries a man has the right to rape his wife, anyone like to defend that?
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Jan 5 2004, 01:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Jan 5 2004, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> At the end of the day, do you not trust the men and women you placed into office with your votes, and do you not trust the servicemen and women pledged to defend your nation and Constitution from any foe? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If there is one thing history has taught us, no empire or government lasts forever. How does not being at all prepared for dictatorship help the cause of liberty?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Heh, I can see peoples minds are changing and twisting a lot around here. Didn't you Monse want Palestinians to support their cause via unarmed demonstrations? I remember people saying "Palestinians can't win anything with violence." Now you want USA citizens to support their cause with guns, in case your government would fall under dictatorship. I feel a conflict here <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not precisely analogous - I am not advocating violent revolt so much as I am making it an option. It is also very apparent from rock-tossing palestinian teens that they have few weapons and are basically disarmed, making their plight and bargaining position amount to about 0 options. I would of course hope that peaceful protest would overcome any problem, and that it is a more effective way to influence a reasonable world. However, as we've seen over the past decade, the world isn't as likely to come to our aid anymore as it once might have been, nor has it ever been asked to. It's called hedging your bets, in english slang. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Good try though! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
*Is beginning to have flashbacks to the previous Guns thread*
I agree with much MonsE is saying (Omg? <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> ) I don't think anyone still in thier right mind is advocating armed revolt OR shooting the guy trying to lift your DVD collection with a 20mm vulcan mounted on the back of your toilet. Simply advocating someones right to buy a firearm, even if it does have those "evil unneeded features".
Getting back on topic, I keep hoping that the ban sunsets and isn't replaced, and everything goes as it should. Banning certain features becuase they're "OMG SCAWEY!! OH NOES! (onos? <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> )" and "They have no sporting purpose!" seems rather stupid to me. For one (my personal opinion, and probably flamebait, so take it for what it's worth) that those who are so deathly afraid of firearms, should simply move to Austrailia. Or the UK. Problem solved. And not much about hunting is sporting nowadays. *looks at this years hunting regs* Well, apparently, I can't use explosives, fully automatic weaponry, anything that projects a beam of light visible to the naked eye, or silencers/suppressors during the course of a hunt, nor can I hunt from a vehicle. Well darn, I guess using a quad suppressed 23mm AA gun with an added spotlight mounted in the back of my pickup is right out then. Yet, if im reading this correctly, I could take out an M82 (Provided I only load it with 5 rounds! Becuase any more is not SPORTING!)with a 4th gen NV sight and sit, waiting in a heated treestand overlooking a deer feeder. Riiiiight. Or the typical sport hunters hubble space telescope w/ attached rifle.
You want sport? Run around in your underwear with a pointy stick after that deer. Better yet get 19 friends to help. Can't afford to feed yourself/family but you can hunt? Do what you need to do. Get your rifle and don't come back till youve got 150 pounds or so of venison.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 5 2004, 08:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 5 2004, 08:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not precisely analogous - I am not advocating violent revolt so much as I am making it an option. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What's wrong with the analogy? Palestinians being oppressed by their government(who they don't even recognize as their government) take arms to fight against the (occupying?) government. Fictional USA citizens take arms to fight against their oppressing government.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is also very apparent from rock-tossing palestinian teens that they have few weapons and are basically disarmed, making their plight and bargaining position amount to about 0 options.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't say disarmed as they've caused a lot of casualties via bombings. However I don't see how this is relevant. You didn't quite answer my guestion, or if you did, you hid it very well. Hence the repeat(I try to break it down): You think USA should reserve the right for violent revolution. People should have the right to attack the government with arms, if they see it's needed. Correct? Do you think Palestinians should also have the right to attack the government that, they feel, oppresses them?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's called hedging your bets...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like that phrase <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
You need to be able to hold two ideas in your head at one time:
1) That using peaceful protest and the law is a highly effective way to stop despotic behavior, andf should be exercised to the fullest (something the Palestinians have not really done, and that the US colonists did do, in our example) 2) That failing that, you reserve the right to overthrow the government (the palestinians did in the least effective way possible, and the US did quite well).
This is the basis of the US Declarations of Independence and the US Constitution. For your analogy to work and for me to be double-thinking, the Palestinians need to have tried the peaceful route first. They have not, and your analogy therefore becomes less effective. Therefore, i r win0r!!! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you think Palestinians should also have the right to attack the government that, they feel, oppresses them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, after they exhaust other (often more effective) measures. This did not occur, because the palestinian leadership wants power more than results. But that is the subject for another debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You need to be able to hold two ideas in your head at one time<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are asking me to employ my both braincells at the same time? Huh, you're a real whip Hübel <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I see your point, so this means that when you get occupied by the foreign nation or whatnot, you'll start demonstrating and ask them to leave? Or you'll ask your oppressing government to kindly step aside? Replied with a greasy LOLROFL. I have my doubts that even you yanks, as patient as you are known, would just hold back for couple of months to wait if they'll move <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
See, my knowledge of mid-eastern history isn't the greatest, but wasn't it the Israelis who kind of occupied Palestinian lands? So basically they are just fighting against enemy nation? Educate me, discussion forums have taught me probably as much as my 3last years of history classes <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Jan 3 2004, 08:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Jan 3 2004, 08:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As long as gun laws are passed by the state you live in and not the federal government, I'm fine. When the federal government passes some anti-gun bill, we're having ourselves a revolution and I'm joining it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> *Jumps on revolution bandwagon*
But seriously, I'm in favor of gun control <b><i>TO A DEGREE</b></i>! I don't believe that banning certain weapons will reduce the crime rate, but I do believe that requiring a person to apply for a liscence before attempting to purchase a firearm <b><i>MAY</i></b>. Overall I'm a pretty liberal guy (don't interpit that as a political offiliation. Think of it more like "freedom loving"), but it only seems to me that the gun control laws in this country have been restricting that liberty as of late (despite the fact that the second amendment <i>clearly</i> states that the right to bear arms shall <b>not</b> be infringed [even though it's refering to the rights of an orginized militia, not an individual citizen]. Funny).
Again, I think you are right, and that the natural American reaction would be to fight. That's why I feel a fair amount of empathy for the Palestinians in general. However, in their specific scenario where it's plain that no one is coming to their aid and that they have no capacity to fight, they should have gone with winning via world opinion. Non-violent protest has freed many people when done right (must I keep bringing up India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, America, etc?), and it's the preferred aproach in my mind. Especially since many of current European powers would never raise a finger to free us from a dictatorship, based on current event. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 5 2004, 11:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 5 2004, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, in their specific scenario where it's plain that no one is coming to their aid and that they have no capacity to fight, they should have gone with winning via world opinion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You stated before how " the world isn't as likely to come to our aid anymore as it once might have been" and if we assume that USA doesn't have the capacity to fight(you army scattered and destroyed or even better, you are fighting against your own army). I take it you would want USA to go winning via world opinion if your government would start oppressing you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Especially since many of current European powers would never raise a finger to free us from a dictatorship, based on current event. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if it would your own dictatorship, I believe we wouldn't be too keen on jumping against a superpower with tens of thousands of nukes. Then again, I've always wanted to kill cockroaches as big as my bed. If it were a foreign nation occupying, I'm sure NATO countries would send their sympathies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Therefore, j00 r the whin0r!!! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 5 2004, 11:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 5 2004, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ROFL. What the hell were we talking about again? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How should I know? I just spam as much offtopic posts as I can <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Something to do with guns. Oh yeah, kids, guns are bad mmkay?
Oh yeah. If you have a weapon in your home, everyone should be taught proper safety. It should not be available to children. Your older children and spouse should attend mandatory safe-weapons handling instruction. It should be licensed and legally purchased. There is no need for it to be fully automatic. And it should be made in the USA, so that europeans that don't allow their own people to own firearms should not get to profit from them regardless.
There, problem solved, next topic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--BlakHolez_Son+Jan 5 2004, 12:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlakHolez_Son @ Jan 5 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->("But there is no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it and not having a gun and not shooting someone with it, and you would be a fool and a Communist to make one" - Bill Hicks). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hahaha, he invoked Bill Hicks! I laughed so hard it hurts. Even some lovely anti-red propaganda to boot.
We can't take you seriously if you're going to post like that. Come on now.
<!--QuoteBegin--BlakHolez_Son+Jan 5 2004, 12:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlakHolez_Son @ Jan 5 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Flame bait will be welcomed, lets see if anyone can postulate a better arguement than "It's my right.."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We've got pages of it. We can't help it if you don't want to hear it.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 5 2004, 05:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 5 2004, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ... And it should be made in the USA, so that europeans that don't allow their own people to own firearms should not get to profit from them regardless.
There, problem solved, next topic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> :: pets his Benelli and H&K giving MonsE dirty looks ::
Were you being serious about educating the older kids and spouse about the proper and safe use of firearms? I don?t see many people advocating that point of view, although I myself am strongly for it. I feel education is the best solution to this problem. Not bans.
Education = Gun control
edit: :: sends Blackhole Sunz a pamphlet on PTSD and a case of Paxil ::
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If there is one thing history has taught us, no empire or government lasts forever. How does not being at all prepared for dictatorship help the cause of liberty? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I don't see people preparing for an alien invasion, for the reason that it's extreamly unlikely. Same with the US turning into a dictatorship; I really can't see how you could warp the current US into a despotic regime.
Comments
So you are saying the English government, a very established democracy, was not despotic in its dealings with the American colonies? How about with their African colonies? Chinese? Middle Eastern? What about their fine fair dealings with Ireland and Scotland? How about all the other long-running European Democracies which managed to colonize and rule most of the world with an iron hand for a few centuries?
No one is asking you to have a weapon. No one is forcing you to. All that is being discussed is people's right to have the choice. Feel free to not buy one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think they were very despotic. However, as a nation - Britian was a democracy. It had not fallen into despotism, it was merely despotic in its attitudes towards its colonies. So my original statement still stands, if you are part of a stable, established modern democracy, history thinks you have a better than average chance of remaining free of despotic leaders. Your country probably wont dissolve into a despotism. The colonies dont count as part of the British voting public.
To take Germany as an example, Hitler was legally elected, and then started consolidating power, while the majority of the German public stood by in either ignorance or apathy. Either way, an armed populace wasnt going to help at all.
No one is asking me to have a weapon true. I'm actually one of the few armed Australians, owning a Lee Enfield no4 .303 rifle. However, not having a weapon wont save you from being shot by the millions of other gun owners either legitimate or not (if I lived in America). A little off topic? Surely no more than the history a .50 cal machine gun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
That 4th branch was suppost to be the Organized milita.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok. I'm going to join this debate now.
Let's look at the whole idea of an armed force regulating the government. Turning back the clock to Jefferson's time, the US had no standing army. Congress and the Founding Fathers distructed standing armies, as they had a rather poor reputation in Europe for becoming more powerful than the governments they fought for. But eventually the US had little choice; it had to establish a permenant armed force in the form of a standing military. Today we have the US army, Air Force and Navy, plus the Marine Corps. Now what exactly is their role?
Undoubtably one of the major role these soldiers play is in the defense of the US from external foes, and the enforcement of American foreign policy. Soldiers also can help out in times of national crisis or disasters. But they have another role, one that may not seem so clear. They protect the Constitution of the United States.
To understand this, one must understand the nature of the military of the United States. It is a volunteer army, comprised of American citizens who have decided to serve their country. One would be hard pressed to find a more patriotic group of Americans than the men and women who serve their country in the military. They love their country and the ideals it stands for, as I'm certain Monse can attest to. And almost all those ideals stem from the foundations of the modern US state: the Constitution.
A dictator, by definition, must have a way of controlling the populace. In almost every case, this is done by force. The dictator has an armed force at his command which will enforce his rule, crushing dissent and rooting out "traitors". Without such a force, a dictator cannot rule a country that does not want him there. He must always have the support of a percentage of the population (Just like Saddam had the support of key Iraqi tribes).
The problem for any dictator in the US is the US military. If he wants to take over externally, he must contest this force which is capable of defeating just about any attack the world could throw at the US, excluding full out nuclear war. But a dictator trying to take over the system from within must also contest the US army.
The US army is not the same as the armies which fought during the time of the Founding Fathers. The US army will not enforce any law that violates the Constitution of the United States. It's very members would never allow it, and they would certainly never follow the orders of a dictator. The organised militia Jefferson spoke of exists today, and it is called the US military.
If you want to prevent your government from become tyrannical, if you want to be a citizen who is armed and ready to defend the Constitution of the United States, then join the US military. That's what they're there for.
When your nations has millions of men and women under arms pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, what need has the populace for a militia, or the machine guns to arm it? There is no need.
Jefferson's idea of militia was one not under control of the government.
"I was only following orders..."
"I was only following orders..." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They still executed him. =\
Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents. (National Safety Council)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if that branch remains true to the Constitution. As Marine01 said, do you honestly, seriously believe that the US military would support a dictator in America? Because if the military will, then the whole country will.
IIRC:
The Desert Eagle handgun was designed primarily for target shooting...
The "most" powerful handgun in existance.. designed for target shooting. and such...weird huh?
So long as there are humans on this earth there will always be disputes on weapons; guns; knives; spears; it's quite interesting really, some humans dedicate themselves to finding new/better ways of killing; first the spear, then the sword, the bow, the crossbow, the early musket rifles, bolt action rifles, automatic rifles..what next? Lasers? Gauss (sp?) rifles?
AFAIK Humans are not the only species that kills it's own, but it is the only species that learns; creates and teaches new and better ways of killing of it's own species....
Back ontopic however; what would happen if no-one had any guns at all? Would that help the problem?(question intentionally unanswered <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if that branch remains true to the Constitution. As Marine01 said, do you honestly, seriously believe that the US military would support a dictator in America? Because if the military will, then the whole country will. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most dictators gain their power via military coup and milipulation of it's military.
This is not precisely correct. The Executive is the commander in chief of the Armed forces. Without Congressional authority however, he cannot involve the armed forces anywhere. Whether it be a declaration of war, a release for armed conflict, etc. he is powerless without the Legislature, in both the Constitution and in practice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think they were very despotic. However, as a nation - Britian was a democracy. It had not fallen into despotism, it was merely despotic in its attitudes towards its colonies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This makes no sense to me at all, nor does it follow history. Britain has, for most of its history, been despotic. This includes the time after parliament was formed, until quite recently (and arguably, it is still despotic in its dealings with Ireland and Scotland to this very day). Maybe you could explain again how being despotic does not make you a despot? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To take Germany as an example, Hitler was legally elected, and then started consolidating power, while the majority of the German public stood by in either ignorance or apathy. Either way, an armed populace wasnt going to help at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you can say that on what basis? Was it coincidence that one of Hitler's first acts was to disarm his populace? Can we agree than an armed populace certainly has more of a chance in revolting against a dictatorship than an unarmed one? Can you name any successful dictatorships that involved having the entire populace armed?
Ryo, you make an old and able argument. However it ignores a simple fact that <i>right now</i> it is highly unlikely that a dictatorship could be formed or obeyed in the US. That <i>right now</i> there is no way any army or government would be formed that would resist the law and constitution. Just like there was no way that a pathetic Austrian corporal would ever rule Germany, or that a band of tin-pot militarists would take power from the Japanese emporer. Once you get rid of your populace's weapons, it will take decades for them to come back naturally, and if the government so wished, they would never come back at all. If weapons are controlled and regulated, you get the best of all worlds. In your scenario, you sinply get to hope nothing bad ever happens because there is no way you'll ever be able to do anything about it.
But how could this change? How could the situation in the US change to the degree where democratic process no longer existed and a dictator ruled from Washington?
For starters you'd have to completely alter the Constitution, which would require the support of two thirds of Congress plus the Supreme Court. After that you have to win over the hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women who represent the so called "armed populace". See, for a dictator to take power in the USA would require the wholesale support of just about the entire population and their representatives, be they in the government or military.
The only way I can see a dictator ever taking over America would be if he or she managed it with the open and full consent of the population (e.g. Terrorists detonate half a dozen nuclear devices across America, President declares martial law and suspends Civil Rights in order to track the perpetrators down, Congress allows this and the American people support it because they believe its nessassary; far fetched, extreamly far fetched, which should illustrate my point). For this to occur you would need a complete reworking of the ideals of democracy and freedom that the American people hold so dear. As long as those ideals remain, no dictator can ever come to power in America. You don't need guns to back that up.
At the end of the day, do you not trust the men and women you placed into office with your votes, and do you not trust the servicemen and women pledged to defend your nation and Constitution from any foe?
People are seriously discussing how upset they are because they can't buy a Barrett .50? It's designed for killing people at ranges of over 1000m or possibly being used as a personal anti-vehicle weapon.
"Barrett .50? Certainly sir, would you like that in home defense configuration or are you just using it for hunting f***ing deer you ****?"
Pistol grip pump action laser sighted shotguns for home defence?
"Quick, he's stealing your DVD collection, shoot him in half you over reactionary paranoid gun nut psychos".
Third Reich took power once they took away people's guns?
Okay, did they take over Europe with, or without guns?
You need a militia?
You have the largest best equipped army in the world, what possible f***ing use is a bunch of untrained wannabe's playing tin soldiers with full automatic weaponary going to do? Your <i>professional</i> army regularly shoots more people on it's own side than they do enemies (including one of my close friends last year - What's the Spirit of the Bayonet, Marines? Kill, kill, kill - yeah, bit more target identification, bit less amphetamine fuelled machine gun rampaging please). Lets make it worse and give all the nutters with persecution complexes M16's (or Barrett's if you like) and set them loose in their home towns and cities.
All your "Cold dead hand" rhetoric and "Constitutional rights" arguements hold very little water with me. Have you ever seen anyone shot? Have you ever done it? Well I f***ing have, I killed for my country and it was eight years ago and it has put a spike right through my soul. You're all so blase about pulling the trigger and killing anyone who breaks into your homes, about forming militias and overthrowing corrupt governments, about having bigger and better guns and being allowed to run round with them. Killing someone (whatever they've done wrong) doesn't make you feel brave or patriotic or heroic. It makes you sick to your stomach and you live the rest of your life wondering how the hell you ever got into that situation. I am proud to have served my country, but I would never pick up a gun for use on another human being again, and if you don't have one for killing people, you don't need one.
<a href='http://www.jeremyjosephs.com/hunger.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.jeremyjosephs.com/hunger.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.dunblane.braveheart.com/dunblane.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.dunblane.braveheart.com/dunblane.htm</a>
These atrocities happened in the UK and we banned guns. Result? It's never happened again ("But there is no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it and not having a gun and not shooting someone with it, and you would be a fool and a Communist to make one" - Bill Hicks). It's called valuing human life, I think dead children is a good reason to give something up but it appears other people don't.
Someone please man up and admit the only reason you have a gun in your wardrobe is because it lends a sense of importance to your insecure, paranoid, insular, xenophobic little life.
Rant over, please mark all replies "Right To Bear Arms" or "I would like to kill someone because..."
Flame bait will be welcomed, lets see if anyone can postulate a better arguement than "It's my right.."
In some countries a man has the right to rape his wife, anyone like to defend that?
If there is one thing history has taught us, no empire or government lasts forever. How does not being at all prepared for dictatorship help the cause of liberty?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Heh, I can see peoples minds are changing and twisting a lot around here. Didn't you Monse want Palestinians to support their cause via unarmed demonstrations? I remember people saying "Palestinians can't win anything with violence." Now you want USA citizens to support their cause with guns, in case your government would fall under dictatorship. I feel a conflict here <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not precisely analogous - I am not advocating violent revolt so much as I am making it an option. It is also very apparent from rock-tossing palestinian teens that they have few weapons and are basically disarmed, making their plight and bargaining position amount to about 0 options. I would of course hope that peaceful protest would overcome any problem, and that it is a more effective way to influence a reasonable world. However, as we've seen over the past decade, the world isn't as likely to come to our aid anymore as it once might have been, nor has it ever been asked to. It's called hedging your bets, in english slang. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Good try though! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I agree with much MonsE is saying (Omg? <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> ) I don't think anyone still in thier right mind is advocating armed revolt OR shooting the guy trying to lift your DVD collection with a 20mm vulcan mounted on the back of your toilet. Simply advocating someones right to buy a firearm, even if it does have those "evil unneeded features".
Getting back on topic, I keep hoping that the ban sunsets and isn't replaced, and everything goes as it should. Banning certain features becuase they're "OMG SCAWEY!! OH NOES! (onos? <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> )" and "They have no sporting purpose!" seems rather stupid to me. For one (my personal opinion, and probably flamebait, so take it for what it's worth) that those who are so deathly afraid of firearms, should simply move to Austrailia. Or the UK. Problem solved. And not much about hunting is sporting nowadays. *looks at this years hunting regs* Well, apparently, I can't use explosives, fully automatic weaponry, anything that projects a beam of light visible to the naked eye, or silencers/suppressors during the course of a hunt, nor can I hunt from a vehicle. Well darn, I guess using a quad suppressed 23mm AA gun with an added spotlight mounted in the back of my pickup is right out then. Yet, if im reading this correctly, I could take out an M82 (Provided I only load it with 5 rounds! Becuase any more is not SPORTING!)with a 4th gen NV sight and sit, waiting in a heated treestand overlooking a deer feeder. Riiiiight. Or the typical sport hunters hubble space telescope w/ attached rifle.
You want sport? Run around in your underwear with a pointy stick after that deer. Better yet get 19 friends to help.
Can't afford to feed yourself/family but you can hunt? Do what you need to do. Get your rifle and don't come back till youve got 150 pounds or so of venison.
</sarcastic arse mode off....OH NO STUCK ON!!! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> >
What's wrong with the analogy? Palestinians being oppressed by their government(who they don't even recognize as their government) take arms to fight against the (occupying?) government. Fictional USA citizens take arms to fight against their oppressing government.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is also very apparent from rock-tossing palestinian teens that they have few weapons and are basically disarmed, making their plight and bargaining position amount to about 0 options.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't say disarmed as they've caused a lot of casualties via bombings. However I don't see how this is relevant. You didn't quite answer my guestion, or if you did, you hid it very well. Hence the repeat(I try to break it down):
You think USA should reserve the right for violent revolution. People should have the right to attack the government with arms, if they see it's needed. Correct?
Do you think Palestinians should also have the right to attack the government that, they feel, oppresses them?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's called hedging your bets...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like that phrase <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
1) That using peaceful protest and the law is a highly effective way to stop despotic behavior, andf should be exercised to the fullest (something the Palestinians have not really done, and that the US colonists did do, in our example)
2) That failing that, you reserve the right to overthrow the government (the palestinians did in the least effective way possible, and the US did quite well).
This is the basis of the US Declarations of Independence and the US Constitution. For your analogy to work and for me to be double-thinking, the Palestinians need to have tried the peaceful route first. They have not, and your analogy therefore becomes less effective. Therefore, i r win0r!!! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you think Palestinians should also have the right to attack the government that, they feel, oppresses them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, after they exhaust other (often more effective) measures. This did not occur, because the palestinian leadership wants power more than results. But that is the subject for another debate.
Good topic!
You are asking me to employ my both braincells at the same time? Huh, you're a real whip Hübel <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I see your point, so this means that when you get occupied by the foreign nation or whatnot, you'll start demonstrating and ask them to leave? Or you'll ask your oppressing government to kindly step aside? Replied with a greasy LOLROFL. I have my doubts that even you yanks, as patient as you are known, would just hold back for couple of months to wait if they'll move <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
See, my knowledge of mid-eastern history isn't the greatest, but wasn't it the Israelis who kind of occupied Palestinian lands? So basically they are just fighting against enemy nation? Educate me, discussion forums have taught me probably as much as my 3last years of history classes <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: King Offtopic strikes again.
*Jumps on revolution bandwagon*
But seriously, I'm in favor of gun control <b><i>TO A DEGREE</b></i>! I don't believe that banning certain weapons will reduce the crime rate, but I do believe that requiring a person to apply for a liscence before attempting to purchase a firearm <b><i>MAY</i></b>. Overall I'm a pretty liberal guy (don't interpit that as a political offiliation. Think of it more like "freedom loving"), but it only seems to me that the gun control laws in this country have been restricting that liberty as of late (despite the fact that the second amendment <i>clearly</i> states that the right to bear arms shall <b>not</b> be infringed [even though it's refering to the rights of an orginized militia, not an individual citizen]. Funny).
Indeed!
Again, I think you are right, and that the natural American reaction would be to fight. That's why I feel a fair amount of empathy for the Palestinians in general. However, in their specific scenario where it's plain that no one is coming to their aid and that they have no capacity to fight, they should have gone with winning via world opinion. Non-violent protest has freed many people when done right (must I keep bringing up India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, America, etc?), and it's the preferred aproach in my mind. Especially since many of current European powers would never raise a finger to free us from a dictatorship, based on current event. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
You stated before how " the world isn't as likely to come to our aid anymore as it once might have been" and if we assume that USA doesn't have the capacity to fight(you army scattered and destroyed or even better, you are fighting against your own army). I take it you would want USA to go winning via world opinion if your government would start oppressing you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Especially since many of current European powers would never raise a finger to free us from a dictatorship, based on current event. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if it would your own dictatorship, I believe we wouldn't be too keen on jumping against a superpower with tens of thousands of nukes. Then again, I've always wanted to kill cockroaches as big as my bed. If it were a foreign nation occupying, I'm sure NATO countries would send their sympathies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Therefore, j00 r the whin0r!!! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
How should I know? I just spam as much offtopic posts as I can <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Something to do with guns. Oh yeah, kids, guns are bad mmkay?
There, problem solved, next topic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hahaha, he invoked Bill Hicks! I laughed so hard it hurts. Even some lovely anti-red propaganda to boot.
We can't take you seriously if you're going to post like that. Come on now.
<!--QuoteBegin--BlakHolez_Son+Jan 5 2004, 12:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlakHolez_Son @ Jan 5 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Flame bait will be welcomed, lets see if anyone can postulate a better arguement than "It's my right.."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've got pages of it. We can't help it if you don't want to hear it.
There, problem solved, next topic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
:: pets his Benelli and H&K giving MonsE dirty looks ::
Were you being serious about educating the older kids and spouse about the proper and safe use of firearms? I don?t see many people advocating that point of view, although I myself am strongly for it. I feel education is the best solution to this problem. Not bans.
Education = Gun control
edit: :: sends Blackhole Sunz a pamphlet on PTSD and a case of Paxil ::
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I don't see people preparing for an alien invasion, for the reason that it's extreamly unlikely. Same with the US turning into a dictatorship; I really can't see how you could warp the current US into a despotic regime.